Murderous justice?

[another day]

Quote by: Zeebadee When you decide that everyone has the right to own and use firearms to defend themselves, it's kind of hypocritical to then sit back and judge a man for using his own interpretation of what that defense entails.

No it's not. You can't interpret it any way you like out of willful ignorance. The law has it clearly defined, and that's why not all "Self defense" charges hold up in court. There is a difference between self defense and vengeance.

This man was clearly trying to falsely establish self defense when he knew he was in no real danger. Sayign things like "I don't know what weaposn they might have, I think I saw a crowbar"... He's fishing for a way to justify what he already decided to do, which was shoot and kill these guys. He says he thinks they might have a weapon etc, but then later says basically, that he just doesn't want to let them get away. That's not self defense.

[tinybear]

Strictly speaking there was no reasonable justification for shooting the burglars, but, somehow, I too find it difficult to feel sorry for them.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: another day No it's not. You can't interpret it any way you like out of willful ignorance. The law has it clearly defined, and that's why not all "Self defense" charges hold up in court. There is a difference between self defense and vengeance. This man was clearly trying to falsely establish self defense when he knew he was in no real danger. Sayign things like "I don't know what weaposn they might have, I think I saw a crowbar"... He's fishing for a way to justify what he already decided to do, which was shoot and kill these guys. He says he thinks they might have a weapon etc, but then later says basically, that he just doesn't want to let them get away. That's not self defense.

At the moment of truth, one doesn't always have time to think about what the letter of the law says. The rush of adrenalin and the stress of a possible life-threatening confrontation also act to compress time even further.

I don't think he had already decided to shoot these guys, if they had stopped and raised their hands I don't think he would have shot them. In any case, intruders such as these know the risks they face, and willingly accept them.

[ruksak]

Quote by: tinybear Strictly speaking there was no reasonable justification for shooting the burglars, but, somehow, I too find it difficult to feel sorry for them.

The dirt bags deserve what they got. If I saw two men crawl in and then crawling out of my neighbors window I would confront them, at gunpoint. A warning shot fired into the ground would be the extent of my violence unless they posed a threat to me. Just allowing these men to scuttle off with no confrontation could easily allow for them to come back and hit your house.

Even just the scare of being confronted by an armed and ready homeowner may give them cause to stay the hell away from that street.

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't think he had already decided to shoot these guys,

Mr Horn made several mistakes. Starting when he said, and I'm quoting verbatim from the audio tape, "I'm gonna kill 'em" to a 911 operator. Dumb da dumb dumb.

You don't shoot unarmed men in the back either. Again.....dumb. I actually haven't seen any relative autopsy findings for this case or any indication of where and in what fashion, anatomically speaking, that the dirt bags got shot.

All that being said, just scaring the mortality into these dirt bags woulda been suffice.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Wait a minute here. Isn't "Burglary" the term ascribed to entering an occupied dwelling, and "Breaking, and Entering" the term used for entering an unoccupied building?

Unless something has changed recently in other states, they're used interchangeably obviously depending on what your state labels the crime as specifically.

[Autolykos]

Violence has a brutal logic to it. If you want to keep a person from stealing, cut off his hands. If you want to keep him from running away, cut off his feet. If those won't stop him, cut off his head. You get the idea.

The thing we need to ask is whether one person's property is worth another person's life. Since worth is subjective, the answer to this question must also be subjective. Unfortunately, that means there is no "right" answer to this question.

On another note, a gun is a killing machine. Plain and simple. Whether used on people or animals, its objective is to kill. Using a gun to intentionally wound or disable a person, from what I understand, takes an incredible amount of skill. The vast majority of people lack this skill. For one of them to try to use a gun as merely a wounding or disabling device is foolhardy at best.

- Rob

[ruksak]

Quote by: Autolykos On another note, a gun is a killing machine. Plain and simple.

As I pointed out in an above post, a gun can be used quite effectively to send a message to predatory opportunistic criminals such as those whom break-and-enter. By firing a warning shot as they run off, they receive a clear and untethered message; Stay away from here DANGER! One needs not actually target their query to use a gun effectively, as a tool of warning.

Using a gun to intentionally wound or disable a person, from what I understand, takes an incredible amount of skill. The vast majority of people lack this skill. For one of them to try to use a gun as merely a wounding or disabling device is foolhardy at best.

100% true. Do not fire your gun unless you want to kill the target. Just google 'Sean Taylor' if you want evidence of a bullet killing a man when it is grossly off target of center mass.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: ruksak As I pointed out in an above post, a gun can be used quite effectively to send a message to predatory opportunistic criminals such as those whom break-and-enter. By firing a warning shot as they run off, they receive a clear and untethered message; Stay away from here DANGER! One needs not actually target their query to use a gun effectively, as a tool of warning.

You're right. Warning shots serve to indicate that one is able and willing to use a gun.

100% true. Do not fire your gun unless you want to kill the target. Just google 'Sean Taylor' if you want evidence of a bullet killing a man when it is grossly off target of center mass.

Indeed.

- Rob

[ruksak]

Something for y'all to chew on while I'm gone at work;

Texas Criminal Code: § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. § 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or (2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property; (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes....000009.00.htm

Everyone can argue the moral issues, but it looks like he was within his legal rights. It also appears that it is a bad idea to break into someone’s house in Texas, even if you plan on running off if you get caught

[brien]

Horn said they stepped on his property

Did he shoot them on his property while they were threatening him? If so he had the right to confront them, if not, he did not have the right to confront them.

[brien]

I don't think he had already decided to shoot these guys, if they had stopped and raised their hands I don't think he would have shot them.

I agree that Horn was, at times, attempting to imitate police behavior here.

[brien]

If I saw two men crawl in and then crawling out of my neighbors window I would confront them, at gunpoint. A warning shot fired into the ground would be the extent of my violence unless they posed a threat to me. Just allowing these men to scuttle off with no confrontation could easily allow for them to come back and hit your house

Do this in some states and you would probably find yourself in jail. You can't just decide to be a lawman and enforce the law in a situation like this. We have sworn officers to do it.

If the perps come to you, and threaten you, then and only then, when you are in "imminent danger" can you use a firearm to defend yourself.

You just can't go over to your neighbor's house and take upon yourself the role of police officer, and be within the law. You have no right or duty to do so. The best you can do is call the cops and wait for them to arrive. You can't place yourself in "imminent danger", shoot the guys, and then claim self defense. It just doesn't work that way.

[brien]

The vast majority of people lack this skill. For one of them to try to use a gun as merely a wounding or disabling device is foolhardy at best

.

This is spot on. Anyone who hefts and aims a gun, better aim to kill because that is what guns are designed to do, and that is what will probably happen. The torso is the biggest target on the human body. Most shots to the torso will be fatal unless the victim is incredibly lucky. People who watch too much television where the hero is "wounded" in the shoulder live in a fantasy world. Forget TV It is ironic how so many Follywood producers are incredibly anti gun and 2nd Amendment, yet they show with such foolishness, the results of gun violence. No blood and very little real consequences of gun violence. Assholes.

A .38 or .45 caliber bullet will shatter a shoulder, particularly from relatively close range within 25 yards. Blow someone's shoulder off and they will probably bleed to death before help arrives. How do you put a tournequet on a shattered shoulder?

Point being, Rob is correct when he writes most people aren't skilled enough to shoot someone in the calf or bicep. So, shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: brien Did he shoot them on his property while they were threatening him? If so he had the right to confront them, if not, he did not have the right to confront them.

This is answered by Ruksack in the post immediately before your's. In Texas, yes, he did have the right to confront them.

I would have to hunt it down, but I think it might be justified in Colorado, too. I do know for certain that if I were to step out of my house and confront a burglar, in effect making a citizen's arrest, and were to be threatened, I would be fully justified. If the burglar had run without threatening, I'm not absolutely certain what the legalities would be in Colorado, so I most likely wouldn't fire.

However, according to Texas statutes, as posted here, there would be no problems.

Keith

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Unless something has changed recently in other states, they're used interchangeably obviously depending on what your state labels the crime as specifically.

Right, I think "Home Invasion" might be the politically correct term being used in all the new crime dramas. ( And we all know that's where reality is derived from...)

[Cephus]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger However, according to Texas statutes, as posted here, there would be no problems.

Also, and I haven't verified this but they did report it on the radio when they reported on this story, Texas has a law that specifically allows you to protect your neighbor's house as you would your own, so even if they didn't come on his property, he'd be just as justified going next door to help out his neighbors.

I'm still not shedding a tear for the scumbag criminals, regardless.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus, if thats the case, I may have another reason to like Texas, which might make two or three reasons.

[Muser]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Cephus, if thats the case, I may have another reason to like Texas, which might make two or three reasons.

I'd be doing good to make it to 3 and I live here. I am the exception that proves the norm of brainwashed Texans illogically believing themselves and their state to be better than the rest of the US. Be warned, however, that if any Oklahoman insults Texas I will be forced against my will and intelligence to defend Texas - please don't put me in that situation.

And with that bit of levity out of the way, the new law in Texas refers to SB 378, aka the Texas "Castle doctrine", signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on Mar 27, effective 9/1.

Protecting home with force could get easier

• Establish in law the presumption that a criminal who unlawfully intrudes in a home, occupied vehicle or place of business is there to cause death or great bodily injury, and the occupants may, therefore, use any force, including deadly force, against that person. • Explicitly states that a person has no “duty to retreat” if attacked in a place he or she has a right to be, if not the original aggressor and if not engaged in criminal activity. • Protects people using force authorized by law from lawsuits filed by criminal attackers or their heirs or families.

No duty to retreat being the biggest change.

"It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree with your entire post, and appreciate your sense of humor Muser.

No worry, I am not from Okie.

(Not that theres anything wrong with that....) quoting Seinfeld.

Glad to see some people in the Texas State Legislature have their heads screwed on right, right of course, being based on my opinion.

"It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

One of my favorite quotes.

[Muser]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I agree with your entire post, and appreciate your sense of humor Muser.

Thanks, Os, appreciate your appreciation. I've been known to be a smart-ass....now to get the rest of me up to speed.

No worry, I am not from Okie. (Not that theres anything wrong with that....) quoting Seinfeld.

Well, I wouldn't go THAT far.

Glad to see some people in the Texas State Legislature have their heads screwed on right, right of course, being based on my opinion.

Your opinion's correct, in my opinion. By the by, we should've started a betting pool to see how long it'd take for someone to play the race card:

Texas shotgun justice

The New Black Panther Nation, a black activist group, led nearly 200 protesters to Mr. Horn's otherwise quiet street for a rally on Sunday. They were met by a roughly equivalent number of his supporters; bikers revved their engines to drown out Quanell X, the New Black Panther Nation's leader, when he tried to speak.

Given what facts I'm aware of thus far, it appears Horn acted within all constraints of Texas law:

An investigation is still under way, but a spokesman for the Pasadena Police said it appears Mr. Horn shot the two men after he turned a corner and found them in his yard. Police estimate he was two to three metres from the men. One was hit in the chest, another in the side.